Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

[Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor,


Thank you for your email. 

Please, see my answers to your questions as follows:

1) Thank you for the improvements you've done. I am ok with the changes.

2) As you pointed out, I couldn't find the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209, either. I suggest the following change (removing MUST):

OLD:
Per RFC
3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 

NEW:
Per RFC
3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
signaling of these protecting LSPs, they have the same Tunnel
Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 

3) According to the definition and usage of the <aside> element, it looks like there will be no problem putting the "Note:" in the <aside> element. But, I don't know what the resulting text looks like if the <aside> element is used. Nevertheless, I should be ok as long as the text is there.

4) Thank you for taking a close look at those reference documents as well. Both  expressions are understood to be the same. I would like to keep object names consistent in this document by making them all uppercase.

5) Yes, it means "preemption status". I am fine with your suggestion.

6) "SMP" in the "SMP protecting LSP" is not really necessary. Since we use "protecting  LSP" throughout this document except Section 5.6, please, replace "SMP protecting LSP" with "protecting LSP" in Section 5.6.    

7) Sorry for the confusion. Suggestion #1 is correct.

8) Your change is good.

9) I am aware of the terms related to the "inclusive language" and tried not to use them. I don't think any changes are needed. 

10) No objection. Thank you for the consistency check.
 
Thank you.


Best regards,

Jeong-dong





-----Original Message-----
From:  "" <[e-mail]>
To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
Sent:  2022-07-13 (수) 07:37:12 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body of
document:  Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define
extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we
changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below.  Please review,
and let us know any concerns.

Original:
 GMPLS Extension for SMP
...
 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . .   5
 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
...
 RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation Protocol
 - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
 (SMR) mechanisms.

Currently:
 GMPLS Extensions for SMP
...
 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions
 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extensions for SMP
...
 RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation
 Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh
 Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We could not verify the "MUST" as related to
RFC 3209.  Please verify that this text is correct and will be clear
to readers.

Original:
 Per RFC
 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
 signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
 Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Please review whether this "Note:" item
should be in the <aside> element.  <aside> is defined as "a container
for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it"
(https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).

Original:
 Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching
 signaling is done via data plane. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3:  We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status"
instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use
"ADMIN_STATUS".  However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status".  Will
these distinctions be clear to readers?

Original:
 The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the
 ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). -->


5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:  Does "preempted situation" mean
"preemption status" or something else?  If the suggested text is not
correct, please clarify.

Original:
 Once the working LSP and the
 protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST
 keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of
 failure or preempted situation.

Suggested:
 Once the working LSP and the
 protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST
 keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of
 failure or preemption status. -->


6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6:  Do these four instances of "SMP protecting
LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for SMP", or
something else?

Original:
 SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the nodes
 along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP.

 In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS
 channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path of
 the SMP protecting LSP.  This is done by other means than GMPLS
 signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up.  Therefore,
 there are likely additional requirements for APS configuration which
 are outside the scope of this document.

 Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may
 use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP
 protecting LSP. -->


7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  We had trouble determining what is "only
applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1".  If
neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify.

Original:
 The O bit is only
 applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type
 Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1
 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection),
 or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).

Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied):
 The O bit is only
 applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection
 Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08
 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
 Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).

Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1):
 The O bit is only
 applicable when the P bit is set to 1.  Also, the LSP Protection
 Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic),
 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
 Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). -->


8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3:  This paragraph was difficult to follow;
for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly.  Also,
the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, Paragraph 1,
last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873.
We updated the text as follows.  Please review carefully, and let us
know if anything is incorrect.

Original:
 [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
 Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, and
 left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
 allocates the preemption priority field from those formerly-reserved
 bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4873]
 are updated as follows:

Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has
   been corrected):
 [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
 Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and
 left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
 allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly
 reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined
 in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document as
 follows: -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not
flag any words or phrases. -->


10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in this
document.  We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any
objections.

 LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872)

 Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872,
  with one exception, which appears to be an oversight) -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/07/12

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will 
allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or 
moved:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12)

Title            : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
Author(s)        : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park
WG Chair(s)      : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger

Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston